Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
DESCRIPTION
FRACTURE PREDICTION METHOD, PROCESSING DEVICE,
PROGRAM PRODUCT AND RECORDING MEDIUM
Technical Field
[0001] The present invention relates to a fracture
prediction method for extracting a fracture risk
portion when performing deformation analysis by a
finite element method, a processing device, a program
product and a recording medium.
Background Art
[0002] In recent years, in the automobile industry,
it has become an urgent problem to develop a vehicle
structure capable of reducing injuries to a passenger
at a time of collision. On the other hand, reduction
in weight of the vehicle body is also important for
improving fuel efficiency. For solving these
problems, application of materials with higher
strength, high-strength steel sheets as steel
materials in particular, is considered. However,
generally it is said that increase in strength leads
to deterioration in formability. For expanding
application, it is important to improve formability,
particularly, stretch flange formability.
[0003] For solving such problems, development of a
material with excellent stretch flange formability is
- 1 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
in progress. For example, in Patent Document 1,
there is disclosed a material with stretch flange
formability improved by controlling microstructure
such as ferrite and bainite. Further, in Patent
Document 2, there are disclosed aluminum alloy sheets
with excellent stretch flange formability by defining
plastic anisotropy and uniform elongation in a
tensile test in a specific direction.
[0004] However, formability in an actual part is
determined not only by material properties, but is
affected by die configuration, lubricating conditions,
forming conditions, and/or the like in a complicated
manner. Therefore, it is necessary to set these
complicated factors appropriately, together with
materials, so as to take advantage of excellent
material properties. For such purposes, numerical
analysis techniques are applied.
[0005] In Patent Document 3, there is disclosed a
method of predicting a fracture or a wrinkle, which
is a forming defect at the time of formation, using a
finite element method. According to this method,
analysis is performed with the finite element method,
and generation of fracture or wrinkle is determined
using data of strain and/or stress of an element of
interest. However, when using such a method, it is
required to perform element discretization by an
appropriate size according to the analysis target.
When analysis is performed with inappropriate element
- 2 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
discretization, there is a fear that the prediction
results in over or under estimation and hence does
not correspond to the reality.
[0006] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent
Application Laid-open No. 2002-60898
[Patent Document 2] Japanese Patent Application
Laid-open No. 2006-257506
[Patent Document 3] Japanese Patent Application
Laid-open No. Hei 8-339396
Summary of the Invention
[0007] As described above, it has been very
difficult to extract a fracture risk portion reliably
by the conventional arts when predicting generation
of a fracture or a wrinkle, which is a forming defect
at the time of forming, using the finite element
method.
[0008] The present invention is made in view of the
above-described problems, and an object thereof is to
provide a fracture prediction method for extracting a
fracture risk portion easily and reliably when
predicting a fracture by the finite element method, a
processing device, a program product and a recording
medium.
[0009] The present inventors considered the
fracture prediction method while focusing attention
on that deformation localizes on a fracture risk
portion and a large deformation gradient occurs
- 3 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
around the portion, and found that the fracture risk
portion can be determined reliably. The gist of the
present invention is as follows.
[0010] A fracture prediction method includes:
a first step of discretizing an analysis target
part by a first area and a second area larger than
the first area respectively and performing forming
analysis using a finite element method;
a second step of calculating maximum principal
strain or sheet thickness reduction rate for each of
the part discretized by the first area and the second
area; and
a third step of extracting a fracture risk
portion from the analysis target part discretized by
the first area, where difference of maximum principal
strain or sheet thickness reduction rate between
calculated values in the part discretized by the
first area and those in the part discretized by the
second area is larger than a predetermined value at a
position corresponding to a same portion on the
analysis target part.
In the fracture prediction method according to an
embodiment, in the first step, a size of the first
area and a size of the second area are determined by
a relationship with n value of the analysis target
part.
In the fracture prediction method according to an
embodiment of the present invention, in the third
-.4-
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
step, when a fracture risk portion where the
difference is larger than the predetermined value is
not extracted, at least the first area out of the
first area and the second area is set smaller, and
the first step, the second step and the third step
are executed again sequentially.
In the fracture prediction method, according to
an embodiment, in the first step, an edge portion of
the analysis target part is discretized by the first
area and the second area respectively, and then the
forming analysis is performed.
A fracture prediction method includes:
a first step of discretizing an analysis target
part into plural areas and performing forming
analysis using a finite element method;
a second step of calculating maximum principal
strain or sheet thickness reduction rate for each of
the areas;
a third step of combining adjacent two or more of
the areas and calculating maximum principal strain or
sheet thickness reduction rate in the combined area;
and
a fourth step of extracting, as a fracture risk
portion of the analysis target part, the area where
difference of the maximum principal strain or the
sheet thickness reduction rate before and after
combining the areas is larger than a predetermined
value.
- 5 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
In the fracture prediction method, according to
an embodiment, in the first step, an edge portion of
the analysis target part is discretized by the area
and then the forming analysis is performed.
A processing device used for fracture prediction
method of an analysis target part includes:
a first unit discretizing an analysis target part
by a first area and a second area larger than the
first area respectively and performing forming
analysis using a finite element method;
a second unit calculating maximum principal
strain or a sheet thickness reduction rate for each
of the part discretized by the first area and the
second area; and
a third unit extracting a fracture risk portion
from the analysis target part discretized by the
first area, where difference of maximum principal
strain or sheet thickness reduction rate between
calculated values in the part discretized by the
first area and those in the part discretized by the
second area is larger than a predetermined value at a
position corresponding to a same portion on the
analysis target part.
In the processing device, according to an
embodiment, the first unit determines a size of the
first area and a size of the second area by a
relationship with n value of the analysis target part.
- 6 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
A processing device used for fracture prediction
method of an analysis target part includes:
a first unit discretizing an analysis target part
into plural areas and performing forming analysis
using a finite element method;
a second unit calculating maximum principal
strain or a sheet thickness reduction rate for each
of the areas;
a third unit combining adjacent two or more of
the areas and calculating the maximum principal
strain or sheet thickness reduction rate in the
combined area; and
a fourth unit extracting, as a fracture risk
portion of the analysis target part, the area where
difference of the maximum principal strain or the
sheet thickness reduction rate before and after
combining the areas is larger than a predetermined
value.
A program product causes a computer to execute:
a first step of discretizing an analysis target
part by a first area and a second area larger than
the first area respectively and performing forming
analysis using a finite element method;
a second step of calculating maximum principal
strain or sheet thickness reduction rate for each of
the part discretized by the first area and the second
area; and
- 7 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
a third step of extracting a fracture risk
portion from the analysis target part discretized by
the first area, where difference of maximum principal
strain or sheet thickness reduction rate between
calculated values in the part discretized by the
first area and those in the part discretized by the
second area is larger than a predetermined value at a
position corresponding to a same portion on the
analysis target part.
In the program product, according to an
embodiment, in the first step, a size of the first
area and a size of the second area are determined by
a relationship with n value of the analysis target
part.
In the program product, according to an
embodiment, in the third step, when a fracture risk
portion where the difference is larger than the
predetermined value is not extracted, at least the
first area out of the first area and the second area
is set smaller, and the first step, the second step
and the third step are executed again sequentially.
In the program product, according to an
embodiment, in the first step, an edge portion of the
analysis target part is discretized by the first area
and the second area respectively, and then the
forming analysis is performed.
A program product causes a computer to execute:
- 8 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
a first step of discretizing an analysis target
part into plural areas and performing forming
analysis using a finite element method;
a second step of calculating maximum principal
strain or sheet thickness reduction rate for each of
the areas;
a third step of combining adjacent two or more of
the areas and calculating maximum principal strain or
sheet thickness reduction rate in the combined area;
and
a fourth step of extracting, as a fracture risk
portion of the analysis target part, the area where
difference of the maximum principal strain or the
sheet thickness reduction rate before and after
combining the areas is larger than a predetermined
value.
In the program product, according to an
embodiment, in the first step, an edge portion of the
analysis target part is discretized by the area and
then the forming analysis is performed.
[0011] By performing fracture prediction of a part
to be processed based on the present invention,
dependency on selection of analysis conditions can be
reduced, and a fracture risk portion can be extracted
easily and reliably. Accordingly, the costs needed
for development can be reduced, and weight reduction
- 9 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
is realized by applying a material having higher
strength to a part to be processed.
Brief Description of the Drawings
[0012] Fig. 1 is a flowchart of a fracture
prediction method (device) of the present invention;
Fig. 2 is a table showing simulation results when
determining upper and lower limits of coarse and fine
element discretization;
Fig. 3 is a characteristic chart showing
simulation results when determining the upper and
lower limits of the coarse element discretization;
Fig. 4 is a characteristic chart showing
simulation results when determining the upper and
lower limits of the fine element discretization;
Fig. 5 is a flowchart of a fracture prediction
method (device) of the present invention;
Fig. 6 is an explanatory view of a material sheet
used for a forming experiment;
Fig. 7A is a schematic view showing a vertical
cross-section before starting a flange-up forming
test;
Fig. 7B is a schematic view showing a flat
surface before starting the flange-up forming test;
Fig. 70 is a schematic view showing a vertical
cross-section after finishing the flange-up forming
test;
- 10 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
Fig. 8A is a schematic view showing element
discretization by a small size used for forming
analysis;
Fig. 8B is a schematic view showing element
discretization by a large size used for forming
analysis;
Fig. 9 is a characteristic chart showing analysis
results of a maximum principal strain distribution
with large and small elements; and
Fig. 10 is a schematic diagram showing an
internal structure of a personal user terminal device.
Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments
[0013] First, the present inventors examined
deformation states of fracture portions of analysis
target parts in detail. Consequently, it was found
that, there is a peak at a position where a fracture
actually occurs and deformation such as a sheet
thickness reduction rate or strain decreases by
degrees in the vicinity of this peak. Specifically,
it is conceivable that after deformation concentrates
in some area (element) in an analysis target part,
localization of the deformation occurs further in the
area, and it eventually leads to a fracture. This
means that, in other words, in a fracture portion of
an analysis target part, a so-called deformation
gradient is large. The deformation gradient is
variation (gradient) depending on a position of a
- 11 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
deformation amount such as sheet thickness reduction
rate or strain amount in a certain portion of an
analysis target part. The deformation gradient is a
differential coefficient obtained by differentiating
a deformation amount by a position (distance), and
can be represented for example by, considering a
minute area, deformation gradient = [deformation
amount/distance (mm)].
[0014] As a conventional method for distinguishing
a fracture by performing deformation analysis of an
analysis target part by a finite element method,
generally there is adopted a method to compare a
deformation amount of each area (each element
discretized in a mesh form) obtained by calculation
with a fracture limit of a material that is obtained
separately. Specifically, in the conventional method,
during the deformation analysis using the finite
element method, a portion is determined as a fracture
risk portion when a deformation amount in a certain
element exceeds a fracture limit defined based on the
fracture limit of a material of the analysis target
part.
However, in this case, problems occur as follows.
[0015] In the finite element method, the
deformation amount calculated for each element will
be the average value within this element. Therefore,
when the element size is set to be relatively large,
in an element in which a portion with a large
- 12 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
deformation amount exists, this portion exists
locally in a narrow area in the element of interest.
In this case, even when the fracture limit is
exceeded locally in the portion of interest,
averaging of deformation amounts in the element
results in that, so to speak, the deformation amount
of the portion of interest is embedded in the average
value, and thus the output value as the average in
the element does not exceed the fracture limit. In
this case, the portion of interest cannot be
determined as the fracture risk portion.
[0016] Accordingly, to deal with the localization
of deformation, discretization into adequately small
elements is conceivable.
However, in the finite element method, the
calculation time depends largely on the element size
and the total number of elements. When discretizing
into adequately small elements which can deal with
the localization of deformation, a quite long time is
required for deformation analysis. Specifically, the
processing time is proportional to the inverse number
of the cube of a reduction rate of the element size.
For example, the calculation time becomes about eight
times longer when the element size is reduced to 1/2,
and about 64 times longer when the element size is
reduced to 1/4. While use of an element with one
side being 2 mm requires approximately ten hours of
calculation time for the scale of a normal analysis
- 13 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
target part for example, use of an element with one
side being 0.5 mm so as to improve the accuracy
requires approximately 64 times longer, 640 hours, of
calculation time, which lacks practicality.
[0017] Further, when the element size is small, a
problem as follows also occurs. Specifically, when
using an element size smaller than the gauge length
(gauge length to be the reference when a strain of a
fracture portion is measured) at the time of
obtaining the fracture limit of a material of the
analysis target part, an output value from the
element and the fracture limit cannot be compared
directly. In this case, some kind of correction is
required.
[0018] Moreover, in the first place, no matter how
small the discretized element size, there may be a
case where the possibility of fracture generation
cannot be determined accurately. Specifically, even
when a portion having a deformation amount as large
as is sufficient for generation of fracture exists in
the analysis target part, there may be a case where
the portion of interest has a substantially uniform
deformation amount over a relatively large area, and
a fracture does not occur because there is no
localization of deformation therein. An example is
so-called burring deformation such that a
substantially uniform deformation amount occurs in
the periphery of a hole formed in the analysis target
- 14 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
part. In such a case, although no fracture occurs
actually, an output value in the element
corresponding to the portion of interest exceeds the
fracture limit, and the portion may be determined as
a fracture risk portion.
[0019] As explained above, in the conventional
fracture determination method, it is required to have
a high degree of expertise for performing precise
fracture determination, and also it is possible to
miss a fracture risk portion depending on the form of
occurrence of deformation and/or setting conditions.
[0020] To improve this situation, the present
inventors focused attention on that a deformation
gradient is large around a fracture risk portion, and
thereby devised a new fracture determination method
that uses the point that averaging depending on the
element size is performed in analysis by the finite
element method.
According to the present invention, two types of
elements (here, for convenience, the smaller one is
referred to as first element, and the larger one as
second element) having different sizes of
discretization in the finite element method is used
for conducting analysis for a portion having a
deformation gradient. In the finite element method,
a deformation amount in an element of interest is
averaged and outputted. Therefore, in the case where
a deformation portion having a large deformation
- 15 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
gradient exists in a certain element, for when the
element of interest is the first element and when it
is the second element, the former becomes the larger
output value than the latter.
[0021] According to the present invention,
difference between calculated average values in the
part discretized by the first element and those in
the part discretized by the second element is used to
extract a fracture risk portion for the first
element and the second element separately at a
position corresponding to the same portion in the
analysis target part. In this case, when outputs of
average values are different between the first
element and the second element, it is conceivable
that a deformation gradient exists in the element of
interest. This difference between output values
corresponds to the degree of the deformation gradient.
The larger the deformation gradient, the higher the
risk of fracture, and the degree of fracture risk can
be determined by the difference between analysis
values.
[0022] According to the present invention, a
possible structure is such that, after analyzing with
elements having a predetermined size instead of using
two types of elements having different discretization
sizes as described above, two or more elements are
combined so as to take the difference between output
values before and after combining the elements. In
- 16 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
this case, when outputs of average values before and
after combining the elements are different, it is
conceivable that a deformation gradient exists in the
elements of interest. The larger the deformation
gradient, the higher the risk of fracture, and the
degree of fracture risk can be determined by the
difference between analysis values.
[0023] As the analysis values mentioned here, any
value can be used such as sheet thickness, sheet
thickness reduction rate, maximum principal strain,
forming allowance in a forming limit diagram
represented by maximum and minimum principal strains,
or the like, used generally in fracture determination.
It is desirable to use the sheet thickness reduction
rate or the maximum principal strain due to easiness
of handling in analysis. Further, in finite element
method analysis of forming process, generally as an
element, a shell (two-dimensional) element
constituted of several nodes in a plane but has no
node in the thickness direction is used, and the
present invention is preferable for this element.
However, the present invention can be applied in
exactly the same manner to a one-dimensional element
(bar element) used for processed products in a bar
shape, and a three-dimensional element (solid
element) used for improving analytical accuracy of a
deformation in the thickness direction in more detail.
- 17 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0024] It was found that, using such a method, it
is possible to perform simply and reliably fracture
determination that has been difficult conventionally
unless the element size is optimized because of
dependence on the degree of local deformation of a
fracture risk portion, a measurement method when
determining a fracture limit, or the like.
[0025] Specifically, according to the present
invention, all the above-described problems in the
conventional art can be solved.
Specifically, according to the present invention,
as the first element or the element before combining,
it is not necessary to use an element having a very
small size as in the conventional art, and therefore
a significant reduction of processing time is
realized. Also in this case, it is not necessary to
use an element size smaller than the gauge length at
the time of obtaining the fracture limit of a
material of the analysis target part, and hence it
becomes possible to compare the output value from an
element and the fracture limit directly.
[0026] According to the present invention, by
making use of a point in a reverse sense, so to speak,
that the deformation amount is averaged in an element
by the finite element method, two types of elements
having different sizes are used. Therefore, whereas
conventionally contribution of a portion having a
large deformation amount is, so to speak, embedded in
- 18 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
the average value by averaging of a deformation
amount in an element, the present invention allows to
determine a fracture risk portion precisely.
[0027] Further, as in the burring deformation, even
when a portion having a deformation amount as large
as is sufficient for generation of fracture exists in
the analysis target part, the present invention can
handle even the case where the portion of interest
has a substantially uniform deformation amount over a
relatively large area, and a fracture does not occur
because there is no localization of deformation
therein. Specifically, in this case, the portion of
interest has a small deformation gradient (or
substantially no deformation gradient), and hence
taking a difference between output values of the
first element and the second element results in a
relatively small value, which can be determined
precisely as not being a fracture risk portion.
[0028] Further, as a result of dedicated studies
conducted by the present inventors, it was found that
the accuracy of fracture determination increases
significantly as compared to the conventional method
for, among various kinds of fractures, the form of
deformation which is called a stretch flange fracture.
Stretch flange forming can be seen at a root portion
of a center pillar that is a portion of a body side
panel, a flange-up processed portion for welding of
members, or the like, and a deformation state thereof
- 19 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
is close to a uniaxial tension. In such a
deformation mode, the deformation gradient of a
fracture risk portion is quite large. Further, the
deformation is more local compared to other fracture
forms. Therefore, generally it is necessary to use a
quite small element when performing analysis by the
finite element method. This makes the calculation
time excessive, and it is difficult to couple the
calculated value to the fracture limit value of a
material measured by a certain specific gauge length.
In contrast, with the present invention, it was
found that the deformation gradient can be evaluated
as a difference of analysis values by changing sizes
of elements for calculating the analysis values, and
a fracture risk portion can be extracted reliably.
When the present invention is applied to high-
strength steel sheets having ultimate tensile
strength of 440 MPa or higher, in which the stretch
flange fracture might occur easily in relation with
the deformation gradient, prediction accuracy thereof
improves significantly, and thus the present
invention is preferable for such application.
[0029] In addition, the present invention is not
limited to the finite element method, and can be
applied to any analysis method as long as it performs
element discretization. Further, the invention is
effective for prediction of not only a fracture
- 20 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
during formation but a fracture of a material at the
time of deformation by collision.
Hereinafter, the present invention will be
explained specifically.
[0030] The present invention as shown in Fig. 1,
when an analysis target part is discretized into
plural areas (elements) and formation analysis is
performed by the finite element method, two types of
elements, an element having a small size (first
element) and an element (second element) larger than
the first element, are used to perform the formation
analysis (discretizing unit (step) 11), and the sheet
thickness reduction rate or the maximum principal
strain is calculated for each of the elements
(analyzing unit (step) 12). Thereafter, the first
element where a difference value of the maximum
principal strain or the sheet thickness reduction
rate between the first element and the second element
is larger than a predetermined value at a position
corresponding to the same portion on the analysis
target part is extracted as a fracture risk portion
of the analysis target part (extracting unit (step)
15).
Here, the discretizing unit 11, the analyzing
unit 12 and the extracting unit 15 are realized as
functions of a central processing unit (CPU) of a
computer for example.
- 21 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0031] Note
that in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, a solid line
denotes a required unit or step, and a dashed line
denotes an alternative unit or step.
First, to discretize the analysis target part
into plural elements (discretizing unit (step) 11),
the analysis target part is expressed by digital data
(CAD data or shape measurement data) of a three-
dimensional shape of the part as an aggregate of two-
dimensional planer areas. At this time, a corner
portion of the part is discretized by sufficiently
small elements because it changes in shape largely,
to thereby ensure shape reproducibility. Further,
when analyzing a stretch flange fracture in an edge
portion, it is preferable that element discretization
is performed so that the outer peripheral line of the
part is smooth without any projection or recess.
Further, when performing the element discretization
by the first element and the second element with
different sizes, the entire analysis target part may
be uniformly discretized finely (or coarsely), or
some areas of the part where the fracture
determination is performed may be discretized finely
or coarsely. The former is convenient in terms of
operation steps, and the latter is advantageous for
reducing the calculation time. Therefore, the both
may be selected or combined appropriately considering
the overall load.
- 22 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0032] Here, in
the discretizing unit (step) 11, a
size of the first element and a size of the second
element are determined by a relationship with n value
of the analysis target part.
According to the present invention, when
performing analysis with the element discretization
by the finite element method, the element
discretization should be performed sufficiently
finely so as to reproduce the geometrical shape of a
target portion, namely, the curvature of an edge
portion, the radius of curvature of a corner portion,
or the like for example. Further, according to the
present invention, when analysis is performed with
the element discretization being changed with two
types, the first element and the second element, and
thereafter a difference of the sheet thickness
reduction rate or the maximum principal strain is
taken between the first element and the second
element, extra care should be taken for the two
element discretization sizes (coarse and fine). The
present inventors conducted dedicated studies on a
setting method of the coarse and fine element
discretization sizes, and found that the sizes are
related to the work hardening property of a material.
It was found that excellent fracture prediction
accuracy can be obtained when an average size "L
coarse" (in units of mm) of the coarse element
discretization and an average size "L fine" (in units
- 23 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
of mm) of the fine element discretization satisfy the
following relationship, with the work hardening
property of a material being represented by n value
that is obtained generally by a tensile test:
f(2, n) L coarse 5_ f(10, n) (1)
f(0.5, n) L fine .._ f(5, n) (2)
[0033] Here, n is n value of the material, and the
above expressions are satisfied when n 0.05. When
n < 0.05, a value of n = 0.05 may be used to obtain
the L coarse and the L fine. Further, a function
f(L*, n) is given as follows:
f(L*, n) = L*(1 - exp(0.37/n)/3200) (3)
[0034] In other words, the above expressions (1) to
(3) become:
2(1 - exp(0.37/n)/3200) 5. L coarse 10(1 -
exp(0.37/n)/3200) (4)
0.5(1 - exp(0.37/n)/3200) L fine 5(1 -
exp(0.37/n)/3200) (5)
[0035] This function f has a value that gets larger
together with n value. Localization of deformation
does not occur easily when the n value is large, and
hence the fracture prediction accuracy can be assured
even by element discretization with a large size. On
the other hand, deformation can easily occur locally
when the n value is small. Thus, the deformation
gradient of a fracture risk portion becomes large,
and the fracture prediction accuracy lowers unless
element discretization by a sufficiently small size
- 24 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
is performed. Accordingly, the element
discretization size needs to be made small, and hence
such setting is made.
[0036] Although it was anticipated that it is
better to perform the element discretization by a
small size when the n value is quite small, smaller
than 0.05, the element discretization by a too small
size can lead to increase of calculation time and
hence not preferable. Thus, it was found that, even
when the coarse/fine element discretization set with
the n value being 0.05 is used, there is no problem
in practice in the range of accuracy of numeric
analysis by the current finite element method.
Accordingly, when the n value is 0.05 or smaller, the
element discretization may be set with the n value
being 0.05. Results of simulation when determining
upper and lower limits of the coarse and the fine
element discretization are shown in Fig. 2, and
characteristic charts are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
When evaluating the deformation gradient with
higher accuracy, the ratio between the L coarse and
the L fine, L coarse/L fine may be 1.5 or larger,
preferably 2 or larger.
[0037] Next, when performing formation analysis by
the finite element method, as commercially available
software, incremental type software such as PAM-STAMP,
LS-DYNA, one-step type software such as AutoForm,
HyperForm, or the like for example is used for
- 25 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
conducting forming analysis of an entire part, and
the sheet thickness reduction rate or the maximum
principal strain of each of the first elements and
each of the second elements are calculated (analyzing
unit (step) 12). The sheet thickness reduction rate
and the maximum principal strain are calculated as
values of the final shape for performing fracture
determination from histories of plastic strain
increments used by the finite element method. As
formation analysis, the present invention can be used
for forming accompanying hole expansion processing,
flange-up forming, any press forming such as
stretching or deep-drawing, hydro-pressure forming
jointly using an internal pressure, hydro-forming
operating axial force and internal pressure on a
pipe, and the like.
[0038] Here, a difference of the above-described
sheet thickness reduction rate or maximum principal
strain is calculated as a difference between
extracted elements of other analysis results, which
are closest to the position of the element of
interest on the basis of analysis results from the
element discretization by the smallest size.
Then an element with a difference of the above-
described sheet thickness reduction rate or maximum
principal strain being larger than a predetermined
value is extracted as a fracture risk portion
(extracting unit (step) 15).
- 26 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0039] Here, the aforementioned predetermined value
can be obtained as a fracture limit value by a
separately performed experiment, or obtained as a
value corresponding to the size of a combined element
after performing formation analysis of a simple shape
part.
Specifically, for example, when an element with
one side being 2 mm is used as the first element, and
an element with one side being 4 mm is used as the
second element, the predetermined value when the
deformation amount is the maximum principal strain is
preferred to be within the range of 0.01 to 0.50.
Here, with a value smaller than 0.01, it is possible
that misjudgment occurs due to the influence of
errors of numerical analysis, or there is a fear that
even a portion having a relatively small deformation
gradient is recognized as a fracture risk portion.
With a value larger than 0.50, there is a fear that
even a portion having a relatively large deformation
gradient cannot be recognized as a fracture risk
portion. Thus, it is not possible to identify a
deformation portion with high accuracy. Therefore, a
value within the range of 0.01 to 0.50 is preferable.
[0040] Preferably, in the aforementioned range, a
value within the range of 0.03 to 0.20 is preferable.
More preferably, a value within the range of 0.05 to
0.10 is preferable.
- 27 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0041] On the other hand, the predetermined value
when the deformation amount is the sheet thickness
reduction rate is preferred to be within the range of
0.01 to 0.25. Here, with a value smaller than 0.01,
it is possible that misjudgment occurs due to the
influence of errors of numerical analysis, or there
is a fear that even a portion having a relatively
small deformation gradient is recognized as a
fracture risk portion. With a value larger than 0.25,
there is a fear that even a portion having a
relatively large deformation gradient cannot be
recognized as a fracture risk portion. Thus, it is
not possible to identify a deformation portion with
high accuracy. Therefore, a value within the range
of 0.01 to 0.25 is preferable.
[0042] Preferably, in the above range, a value
within the range of 0.02 to 0.15 is preferable. More
preferably, a value within the range of 0.025 to 0.10
is preferable.
[0043] The above-described analysis (analyzing unit
(step) 12) and extraction (extracting unit (step) 15)
may be executed in the same computer. Alternatively,
after the analysis (analyzing unit (step) 12) is
executed in one computer, the sheet thickness
reduction rate or the maximum principal strain of
each of two or more elements from the element
discretization being changed in size as analysis
results thereof may be inputted to another computer
- 28 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
(input unit (step) 13) so as to execute the
extraction (extracting unit (step) 15).
[0044] In the present invention, as described above
using Fig. 2 to Fig. 4, in the discretizing unit
(step) 11 a size of the first element and a size of
the second element are determined by a relationship
with n value of the analysis target part.
[0045] In the present invention, in the extraction
(extracting unit (step) 15) of a fracture risk
portion, when the first element where the difference
value is larger than the predetermined value is not
extracted, at least the first element out of the
first element and the second element is set smaller,
and then the discretization (discretizing unit (step)
11), the calculation (analyzing unit (step) 12) of
the sheet thickness reduction rate or the maximum
principal strain of each element, and extraction
(extracting unit (step) 15) of a fracture risk
portion are executed again sequentially.
[0046] In the present invention, in the
discretizing unit (step) 11 of Fig. 1, an edge
portion of the analysis target part is discretized
into plural elements and then forming analysis is
performed, and in the extracting unit (step) 15, one
of the edge portions is extracted as a fracture risk
portion.
[0047] To divide the edge portion of the analysis
target part into plural elements, the discretization
- 29 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
is performed so that the element discretization size
surely changes particularly in the portion where the
fracture determination is performed. In the edge
portion where the fracture determination is performed,
elements should be connected smoothly without any
recess and/or projection in either case of large and
small element discretization sizes. Further, for
reliably performing the fracture determination in the
edge portion, it is important to evaluate a
deformation gradient along the edge portion, and it
is desirable that the element discretization size
surely changes in the direction along the edge
portion (refer to Fig. 8A and Fig. 8B).
When extracting one of the edge portions as a
fracture risk portion, similarly to the invention, a
portion of an element where a difference of the sheet
thickness reduction rate or the maximum principal
strain of each predetermined element is larger than
the predetermined value is extracted as a fracture
risk portion.
[0048] In the present invention, as shown in Fig. 5,
an analysis target part is discretized into plural
elements (discretizing unit (step) 21), forming
analysis is performed by the finite element method,
and the sheet thickness reduction rate or the maximum
principal strain is calculated for each element
(analyzing unit (step) 22). Thereafter, adjacent two
or more of the elements are combined, the sheet
- 30 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
thickness reduction rate or the maximum principal
strain in the combined element is calculated
(calculating unit (step) 24), and the element where a
difference of the sheet thickness reduction rate or
the maximum principal strain before and after
combining is larger than a predetermined value is
extracted as a fracture risk portion (extracting unit
(step) 25).
Here, the discretizing unit 21, the analyzing
unit 22, the calculating unit 24 and the extracting
unit 25 are realized as functions of a central
processing system (CPU) of a computer for example.
[0049] First, to discretize the analysis target
part into plural elements (discretizing unit (step)
21), the analysis target part is expressed by digital
data (CAD data or shape measurement data) of a three-
dimensional shape of the part as an aggregate of two-
dimensional planar regions. At this time, a corner
portion of the part is discretized by sufficiently
small elements because it changes in shape largely,
to thereby ensure shape reproducibility. Further,
when analyzing a stretch flange fracture in an edge
portion, it is preferable that element discretization
is performed so that the outer peripheral line of the
part is smooth without any projection or recess.
[0050] Next, the same type of software as for the
analysis of Fig. 1 (analyzing unit (step) 12) is used
to perform the same formation analysis as hereinabove,
- 31 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
and forming analysis of the entire part is performed,
so as to calculate the sheet thickness reduction rate
or the maximum principal strain of each element of
interest (analyzing unit (step) 22). The
calculation
of the sheet thickness reduction rate and the maximum
principal strain is the same as in the analysis of
Fig. 1 (analyzing unit) step 12).
[0051] Next, to combine two or more adjacent
elements, a calculated value in each element as a
target of combining and information of the position
(coordinates) of each element are needed. The
calculated value of the element after combining
(sheet thickness reduction rate or maximum principal
strain) is the arithmetic average of calculated
values of the respective elements. The position of
the element after combining is the arithmetic average
of the positions of the respective elements, or more
simply, the position of the central element may be
inherited as it is.
[0052] Then, with elements at closest positions
from each other when compared before and after the
combining being extracted respectively, a difference
of the sheet thickness reduction rate before and
after the combining the elements is calculated as a
difference between the sheet thickness reduction
rates of these extracted elements. Also regarding
the maximum principal strain, a difference is
- 32 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
calculated between elements at closest positions from
each other before and after the combining.
Then, an element having a difference of the sheet
thickness reduction rate or the maximum principal
strain larger than a predetermined value before and
after the above-described combining of elements is
extracted as a fracture risk portion (extracting unit
(step) 25).
The method of obtaining the predetermined value
is the same as in the extraction of Fig. 1
(extracting unit (step) 15).
(0053] The above-described analysis (analyzing unit
(step) 22) and calculation (calculating unit (step)
24) may be executed successively in the same computer.
Alternatively, after the analysis (analyzing unit
(step) 22) is executed in one computer, the sheet
thickness reduction rate or the maximum principal
strain of each element as an analysis result thereof
may be inputted to another computer (input unit
(step) 23) so as to execute the calculation
(calculating unit (step) 24) and the extraction
(extracting unit (step) 25).
As the analyzing unit 12, the same software as
the commercially available software explained in the
previous embodiment may be installed and used.
This device has an input unit 13 inputting the
sheet thickness reduction rate or the maximum
principal strain obtained for each discretized
- 33 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
element to another computer. As the input unit, a
keyboard, a mouse, various types of digitizers or the
like can be used.
[0054] Here, the input unit 13 and the extracting
unit 15 may be in a separate device structure from
the discretizing unit 11 and the analyzing unit 12.
In this case, by inputting a result from formation
analysis performed in one computer to another
computer as original data, the processing can be
performed in parallel, and thereby an effect of
improved efficiency can be obtained.
Here, the input unit 23, the calculating unit 24
and the extracting unit 25 may be in a separate
device structure from the discretizing unit 21 and
the analyzing unit 22. In this case, by inputting a
result from forming analysis performed in one
computer to another computer as original data, the
processing can be performed in parallel, and thereby
an effect of improved efficiency can be obtained.
The input step 13 may be a step of inputting with
a keyboard, or may be a step of inputting (reading
data) the sheet thickness reduction rate or the
maximum principal strain calculated in the analysis
step 12 automatically to the extracting step 15 in
the program product.
The input step 23 may be a step of inputting with
a keyboard, or may be a step of inputting (reading
data) the sheet thickness reduction rate or the
- 34 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
maximum principal strain calculated in the analysis
step 22 automatically to the extracting step 24 in
the program product.
[0055] The present computer readable recording
medium is characterized by recording a computer
program product namely, a flexible disk, a CD-ROM, or
the like.
[0056]
[Example 1]
The present invention will be explained below by
way of presenting actual examples. A forming
experiment was performed such that a material sheet
shape of a hole expansion test by a cylindrical punch
which is normally conducted is divided, and a flange-
up forming is imitated. Specifically, a 180-mm
square material sheet provided with a hole (diameter:
60 mm, or 40 mm, 20 mm) at the center was cut to 1/4
as shown in Fig. 6, and as shown in Fig. 7A to Fig.
7C, a sheet to be processed 4 was held on a 1064) die 1
with a shoulder R of 5 mm by a blank holder 2, and
thereafter the formation was performed using a 1004)
cylindrical flat-bottom punch 3 with a shoulder R of
mm. At this time, the flange-up height 5 is about
mm for a hole diameter of 60 mm, about 30 mm for a
hole diameter of 40 mm, and about 40 mm for a hole
diameter of 20 mm. As the material, a cold-rolled
steel of 440 MPa class having a sheet thickness of
1.6 mm was used. The forming was performed with a
- 35 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
group of four sheets in the experiment.
Consequently,
as the summary is shown in Table 1, a fracture was
generated in a center portion for the case of 60-mm
hole diameter, but no fracture was generated and the
flange-up forming was possible in the case of 40 mm
and 20-mm hole diameters.
[0057] Finite element method analysis simulating
this experimental result was performed. There were
prepared material sheets discretized into elements by
two types of area (each element discretized in a mesh
form) sizes, about 2 mm (Fig. 8A) and about 4 mm (Fig.
8B). Using shape data created by CAD, the
discretizing was performed automatically by a
computer with the number of discretized elements of a
circumferential portion being specified.
[0058] Other analysis conditions were the same for
the both types. The formation analysis was performed
with PAM-STAMP. The maximum principal strain after
forming and the value of the sheet thickness were
extracted for each discretized element from the
entire analyzed data, and a sheet thickness reduction
rate was calculated from the sheet thickness after
formation as (initial sheet thickness - sheet
thickness after forming)/(initial sheet thickness).
The obtained value was outputted with the position
information of each element in the circumferential
portion and was inputted to a computer for data
analysis.
- 36 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0059] Fig. 9 is a characteristic chart showing
data of the maximum principal strain inputted to the
computer for data analysis regarding the cases of the
small element size (about 2 mm) and the large element
size (about 4 mm) respectively. As shown here, it
was found that, in the case of the small element size,
the largest value of the maximum principal strain is
large and the distribution is steep. This can be
conceived to indicate that a large deformation
gradient is generated at the center portion of the
circumference under this condition. First, the
position of an element to have the largest value of
the maximum principal strain in the case of the small
element size and the absolute value thereof were
obtained. Thereafter, in the computer for data
analysis, a position closest to the element that
takes the largest value in the case of the small
element size was found in calculation results of the
large element size, and the absolute value of the
maximum principal strain thereof was obtained.
Finally, the difference between the two absolute
values was calculated on the computer. Such an
operation is equivalent to taking the difference
between peak values of results of the large and small
element sizes in Fig. 9.
[0060] Results thereof are shown in Table 1.
Further, differences of sheet thickness reduction
rate obtained similarly are also shown in the same
- 37 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
table. While differences in the case of the 60-mm
hole diameter are large, the differences become
smaller as the hole diameters become smaller. A
large difference indicates that a deformation
gradient is larger, and corresponds to generation of
a fracture with the 60-mm hole diameter in the
experiment. In this example, a fracture portion is a
stretch flange deformation and is in a state of
uniaxial tension, and the sheet thickness reduction
rate in the case of an isotropic material is about
1/2 of the maximum principal strain. Therefore,
either one may be used as an analysis determination
value, but it is desirable to use the maximum
principal strain having a large absolute value so as
to clarify the difference. In this example, the
absolute value of a difference of an analysis value
as the predetermined value for determination as a
fracture risk portion is difficult to be found
because it changes depending on the element size used,
but in the range of consideration this time, it is
conceivable that use of approximately 0.05 for the
maximum principal strain and approximately 0.025 for
the sheet thickness reduction rate will suffice.
Here, the fracture prediction portion determined
in this embodiment is shown by point A in Fig. 8A.
- 38 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0061]
[Table 1]
DIFFERENCE OF
ANALYSIS VALUE
BETWEEN LARGE
CORRESPONDENCE
HOLE RESULTS OF ELEMENT AND SMALL
DETERMINATION BETWEEN
DIAMETER FORMIMG ELEMENT
BY ANALYSIS EXPERIMENT AND
(mm) EXPERIMENT SHEET
MAXIMUM ANALYSIS
THICKNESS
PRINCIPAL
REDUCTION
STRAIN
RATE
N.G.:
60 CRACKED AT 0.074 0.039 N.G. GOOD
CENTER
O.K.:
40 FORMING 0.029 0.017 O.K. GOOD
POSSIBLE
O.K.:
20 FORMING 0.012 0.017 O.K. GOOD
POSSIBLE
(0062]
[Example 2]
Two or more adjacent elements were combined using
the analysis results with the 60-mm hole diameter and
the small element size (about 2 mm) in Example 1, a
deformation gradient was evaluated by comparing the
difference before and after combining. Thus, whether
fracture determination is possible or not was
examined.
[0063] Element discretization and formation
analysis were performed similarly to the case of the
small element size in Example 1 (Fig. 8A).
Analysis values of the elements (particularly
around the vicinity of elements in which analysis
- 39 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
values peak) were output in advance from formation
analysis results together with position information
thereof. The data thereof were inputted to the
computer for data analysis, the arithmetic average of
analysis values were calculated for each of 2 to 5
combined adjacent elements selected this time, and
the difference with the maximum value of analysis
values of the initial analysis was calculated.
[0064] The difference between the maximum value
obtained from a distribution of maximum principal
strains when the two adjacent elements were averaged
and the maximum value before averaging was 0.007, the
difference from the average value of three elements
was 0.02, the difference from the average value of
four elements was 0.035, and the difference from the
average value of five elements was 0.040. The values
were small compared to those calculated with the
element size being actually changed as shown in
Example 1, but it was found that extracting the size
of a deformation gradient, namely a fracture risk
portion, is possible by taking the difference between
an analysis value calculated with an element combined
from plural adjacent elements and an analysis value
before combining. At this time, about how many
elements should be combined is determined by a ratio
of the size of the deformation gradient to the size
of the element after combining, but it is preferable
to take plural numbers of elements to be combined and
- 40 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
check dependency of the difference of the analysis
values. In this example, it was found that, when
differences between the average value from combining
four elements and analysis values before the
combining are taken, fracture determination is
possible by setting approximately 0.03 or larger of
the maximum principal strain as a predetermined value
at which a fracture occurs.
[0065]
[Example 3]
It was examined whether fracture prediction of
materials having various strength is possible or not
under the test condition of the 40-mm hole diameter
in Example 1. The materials used range from mild
steel to a steel sheet of 980 MPa class shown in
Table 2. Ones having a sheet thickness of 1.6 mm
were used.
As a result of conducting an experiment, a
stretch flange crack occurred in the center of a
portion to be flanged up in the 980 MPa class steel
sheet. Finite element method analysis was performed
under the same conditions as the experiment. The
analysis was performed with two types of element
sizes, about 2 mm and about 4 mm. As shown in Fig.
8A and Fig. 8B, edge portions are connected smoothly
without any recess or projection, and to be careful
about making the element size change surely along the
edge portions, discretizing of edge portions was
- 41 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
automatically performed by a computer with the number
of discretizations on the circumferential part being
specified. Forming analysis and calculation of the
maximum principal strain and the sheet thickness
reduction rate in each element were performed
similarly to Example 1.
[0066] The difference of maximum values of the
maximum principal strain and the sheet thickness
reduction rate after the flange-up forming under the
respective conditions were calculated, with forming
analysis results being outputted, by the computer for
data analysis similarly to Example 1. Results
thereof are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that
the differences become larger as the material
strength become higher, and the deformation gradients
at deformation concentrated portion are large.
Similarly to Example 1, when a difference of 0.05 or
larger of the maximum principal strain is determined
to be a fracture, it was found that a fracture was
determined with the 980 MPa class steel sheet, and
this coincides with the experimental results.
- 42 -
1-3
D
W D
)--,
---i
M--
I
N
DIFFERENCE OF
ANALYSIS VALUE
MATERIAL BETWEEN LARGE
CORRESPONDENCE
RESULTS OF ELEMENT AND SMALL
DETERMINATION
BETWEEN
FORMATION ELEMENT
' BY ANALYSIS EXPERIMENT AND
EXPERIMENT PLATE
YIELD EXTENSION MAXIMUM
ANALYSIS
STRETCH
THICKNESS
STEEL TYPE STRENGTH STRENGTH
PRINCIPAL
(%)
REDUCTION 0
(MPa) (MPa) STRAIN =
RATE
0
_________________________ ,
.
_
1.,
m
O.K.: ,
m
1 i
w
SOFT STEEL 190 326 43 FORMATION 0.018 0.008
,O.K. GOOD m
,
.4.
0
POSSIBLE
1.,
--i
0
1 O.K.:
440 MPa
w
1
295 449 36 FORMATION 0.029 0.017
O.K. GOOD 0
CLASS
w
POSSIBLE
1
1.,
,
1-,
O.K.:
590 MPa
340 612 33 FORMATION 3.035 0.021
O.K. GOOD
CLASS
POSSIBLE
,
_______________________________________________________________________________
__________________
980 MPa N.G.:
752 1034 15 CRACKED AT 3.068 0.031
N.G. GOOD
CLASS CENTER
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0068]
(Other embodiments of applying the present
invention)
The fracture prediction method in the above-
described embodiment (discretizing step 11 to
extracting step 15 of Fig. 1, discretizing step 21 to
extracting step 25 of Fig. 25, and so on) can be
realized by operation of a program product stored in
a RAM, ROM, or the like of a computer. This program
product and a computer readable recording medium
recording this program product are included in the
present invention.
[0069] Specifically, the program product is
provided to a computer by being recorded in a
recording medium such as CD-ROM or via various types
of transmission media for example. As the recording
medium recording the program product, a flexible disk,
a hard disk, a magnetic tape, a magneto-optical disk,
a non-volatile memory card, or the like can be used
other than the CD-ROM. On the other hand, as the
transmission medium of the program product, it is
possible to use a communication medium in a computer
network system for propagating program information as
carrier waves for supplying. Here, the computer
network is a LAN, a WAN such as the Internet, a radio
communication network, or the like, and the
communication medium is a wired line of optical fiber
or the like, a wireless line, or the like.
- 44 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
[0070] Further, the program product included in the
present invention is not only such a type that the
functions of the above-described embodiment are
realized by a computer executing a supplied program
product. For example, when the program product
cooperates with the OS (operating system) operating
on a computer, another application software, or the
like to realize the functions of the above-described
embodiment, such a program product is included in the
present invention. Further, when all or part of
processing of the supplied program product is
performed by a function expansion board or a function
expansion unit of a computer to realize the functions
of the above-described embodiment, such a program
product is included in the present invention.
[0071] For example, Fig. 10 is a schematic diagram
showing an internal structure of a personal user
terminal device. In this Fig. 10, 1200 denotes a
personal computer including a CPU 1201. The PC 1200
executes device control software stored in a ROM 1202
or a hard disk (HD) 1211 or supplied by a flexible
disk drive (FD) 1212. This PC 1200 controls overall
operations of devices coupled to a system bus 1204.
[0080] By the program stored in the CPU 1201, the
ROM 1202 or the hard disk (HD) 1211 of the PC 1200,
procedures of discretizing step 11 to extracting step
15 of Fig. 1, and discretizing step 21 to extracting
- 45 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
step 25 of Fig. 5, or the like of this embodiment are
realized.
[0072] 1203 denotes a RAM, and functions as the
main memory, a work area, or the like for the CPU
1201. 1205 denotes a keyboard controller (KBC), and
controls instruction inputs from a keyboard (KB) 1209,
a not-shown device, or the like.
[0073] 1206 denotes a CRT controller (CRTC), and
controls display on a CRT display (CRT) 1210. 1207
denotes a disk controller (DKC). The DKC 1207
controls access to the hard disk (HD) 1211 storing a
boot program, plural applications, an edit file, a
user file, as well as a network administration
program, and so on, and to the flexible disk (FD)
1212. Here, the boot program refers to a startup
program, a program that starts execution (operation)
of hardware and/or software of a personal computer.
[0074] 1208 denotes a network interface card (NIC),
and performs bidirectional exchange of data with a
network printer, another network device, or another
PC via the LAN 1220.
Industrial Applicability
[0075] By performing fracture prediction of a part
to be processed based on the present invention,
dependency on selection of analysis conditions can be
reduced, and a fracture risk portion can be extracted
easily and reliably. Accordingly, the costs needed
- 46 -
CA 02683640 2013-03-21
for development can be reduced, and weight reduction
is realized by applying a material having higher
strength to a part to be processed.
- 47 -
